Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: Schoeps Demystified  (Read 2978 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #45 on: October 12, 2017, 05:10:56 PM »

Cheaper mics tend to roll the bass off (at least, cheaper cardiod mics).


I'd suggest it is more a continuum from (potentially) rolling off to just not capable of recording it fully.  Cheaper stealth mics are typically smaller.  Smaller mics cannot physically capture the same low end response as larger diameter mics. 


Are you suggesting that you need a larger diameter mic (eg. DPA) to handle heavy bass and record it clean?  I'm curious what you consider to small of a diaphragm to handle serious bass.

Well note that I said *cardiod* mic in the original statement. Tiny omnis like 4061s and B3s, and even the inexpensive Primo and Panasonic capsules in the Sonic Studios, Church Audio and Coresound mics, capture extended bass just fine. With most cardiod mics, there's a noticeable falloff if the capsule is less than the standard 20-22cm diameter of standard commercial mics. Even if you look at DPA's own small hyper, for example, it's pretty rolled off in the LF. Even look at the frequency response for the AT853, which is at least a little larger than a truly small mic. http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/b95ae65cb5585585/index.html

OK.  I was asking, not because of the Church Audio's, but because the Nak 700's are a smaller than average diaphragm cardioid mic, and they can handle just about anything a band can throw at them (trust me on this one, I've made many tapes/recordings that I thought for sure would distort. Now, I just smile knowing they can handle it).
I've resisted commenting further on this thread, but enjoying the comments nonetheless, because it is primarily a Schoeps thread at this point...but truth be known, I'd take my 700's over Schoeps 9/10 times.  Don't get me wrong, Schoeps (and DPA's) are fantastic mics, but I feel that the 700's are better rounded for what I do.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #46 on: October 12, 2017, 05:31:27 PM »

OK.  I was asking, not because of the Church Audio's, but because the Nak 700's are a smaller than average diaphragm cardioid mic, and they can handle just about anything a band can throw at them (trust me on this one, I've made many tapes/recordings that I thought for sure would distort. Now, I just smile knowing they can handle it).
I've resisted commenting further on this thread, but enjoying the comments nonetheless, because it is primarily a Schoeps thread at this point...but truth be known, I'd take my 700's over Schoeps 9/10 times.  Don't get me wrong, Schoeps (and DPA's) are fantastic mics, but I feel that the 700's are better rounded for what I do.


True.  The 700's are really good for what we do.  Not made in many years and pretty much hen's teeth so perhaps not directly on the original question. 

I know some of my favorite audience tapes of the 80's were from Nak 700's (there weren't a lot of high end mics in regular use at that point I don't think).  I still remember well a guy hand holding a pair next to us on the floor at the Blue Notes Jones Beach show, which was the first time I'd seen them. 

I still think Naks should be made.  That was a sad day when they stopped...  For the money they were great for what we do. 

I guess they broke the molds in some ways for what that was worth (maybe not much depending on why they stopped).  The diameter of the 700's is small but for whatever reason the bodies are larger.  I'm not entirely sure they match up on specs to the high end mics but I do think they (even the 100s and 300's) were well adjusted to some of what we do (particularly the loud PA and crowd in a barn type shows).  If I A/B'd them to my typical use these days I think they'd fall short.  I know the 100/300's aren't there in my current applications, but they can still make a relatively pleasing recording (which gets back to an earlier aspect of this discussion). 
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 05:45:14 PM by bombdiggity »
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Offline chk

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 149
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #47 on: October 12, 2017, 05:58:01 PM »
I taped a lot of phish shows in the mid-to- late 90s with nak 100 shotguns based on listening to tons of dead shows taped with 300/100s, and loved them for arena shows. So much side/rear rejection. They were probably slightly better suited for GD due to the way phil's bass tended to be mixed and response of the naks, especially in the low frequencies...Definitely not a smooth response by any stretch but there were no shortage of nice recordings made with that set up.  Once i heard them side by side vs mk41's though, i was hooked on the 41s
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 09:45:25 PM by chk »

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #48 on: October 12, 2017, 06:13:06 PM »

OK.  I was asking, not because of the Church Audio's, but because the Nak 700's are a smaller than average diaphragm cardioid mic, and they can handle just about anything a band can throw at them (trust me on this one, I've made many tapes/recordings that I thought for sure would distort. Now, I just smile knowing they can handle it).
I've resisted commenting further on this thread, but enjoying the comments nonetheless, because it is primarily a Schoeps thread at this point...but truth be known, I'd take my 700's over Schoeps 9/10 times.  Don't get me wrong, Schoeps (and DPA's) are fantastic mics, but I feel that the 700's are better rounded for what I do.


True.  The 700's are really good for what we do.  Not made in many years and pretty much hen's teeth so perhaps not directly on the original question. 

I know some of my favorite audience tapes of the 80's were from Nak 700's (there weren't a lot of high end mics in regular use at that point I don't think).  I still remember well a guy hand holding a pair next to us on the floor at the Blue Notes Jones Beach show, which was the first time I'd seen them. 

I still think Naks should be made.  That was a sad day when they stopped...  For the money they were great for what we do. 

I guess they broke the molds in some ways for what that was worth (maybe not much depending on why they stopped).  The diameter of the 700's is small but for whatever reason the bodies are larger.  I'm not entirely sure they match up on specs to the high end mics but I do think they (even the 100s and 300's) were well adjusted to some of what we do (particularly the loud PA and crowd in a barn type shows).  If I A/B'd them to my typical use these days I think they'd fall short.  I know the 100/300's aren't there in my current applications, but they can still make a relatively pleasing recording (which gets back to an earlier aspect of this discussion).

The 100's, in my opinion, were a true bottom line mic, even though they were as good as most when they came out.  The 300's were an excellent mic, but the batteries were a pain in the ass to get (I had a pair), and are now so more than ever.  People are modifying them to use 48V phantom, and I'd be very interested in hearing how they sound.  The 700's in my rather biased opinion, are fantastic and do very much hold up to todays higher standards.  As forgiving as they are, they zero in on the source very nicely and hold their own sonically...and can handle all levels of bass without concern (of course I tend to set my levels to peak around -6db in order to have plenty of head room - and for an unruly audience!).  I've A/B'd them often with Schoeps, B&K's, DPA's, MG's, AKG's, Neumann's, etc., usually from a recording made in the same location, and I'm still very happy with them.  BTW, if I were to pick up another pair of mics for concert recording, it wouldn't be Schoeps or DPA's, I'd get a pair of Microtech Gefell's...

Oh, and assuming you're talking about Neil Young and the Bluenotes at Jones beach, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that was me  :bigsmile:
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #49 on: October 12, 2017, 06:20:33 PM »
I taped a lot of phish shows in the mid-to- late 90s with nak 100 shotguns based on listening to tons of dead shows taped with 300/100s, and loved them for arena shows. So much side/rear rejection. They were probably slightly better suited for GD due to the way phil's bass tended to be mixed and the non-flat response of the naks, especially in the low frequencies...Definitely not ruler flat response by any stretch but there were no shortage of nice recordings made with that set up.  Once i heard them side by side vs mk41's though, i was hooked on the 41s

It's silly to compare shotguns with a cardioid.  The response of a shotgun simply can't compare.  I used the 300's with shotguns plenty of times, but in my learning days, where I'd experiment with virtually every patter and configuration known, I came to the conclusion that I was happier with the cp-1 capsules.  I won't even go into the 700's shotguns since the 300's guns were exponentially better.  I do agree that the Naks were very well suited for Dead show...and in my opinion, still are.  I thought about buying Schoeps many times, they're great mics, I just didn't see enough of a difference to justify the cost, and felt happier with the overall performance of the Nak 700's.  To each their own, and all that.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11591
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #50 on: October 12, 2017, 06:45:27 PM »
Before I let it go, this thought came to mind as a better way to make the point on the small mics and bass thing-

It would be trivial to build a cheap omni microphone which senses down to zero Hz, outputting DC at that point.  A tiny sensor on an electronic barometer chip does so for pennies.  There is no market for one and it would be problematic anyway.  You'd get large DC offsets with any atmospheric pressure changes!

What is easily possible and what is available are two different things often only tangentially related. 

Tapers get the table scraps of the larger recording gear manufacturing world.  Naks are a good example of mics that happen to be rather well suited to recording as many here at TS do it.  Fortunately mics generally intended for other applications can still do a good job, and we can further manipulate things to get the results we want from them.  That's why I'm actually less concerned with the raw sound from any microphone than how malleable that sound is to my manipulation via EQ or whatever - how easily can I get it to do what I want - and that aspect does seem to be directly correlated with mic quality in my experience.

That's not to say I dismiss the choice of mics based entirely on their raw sound so that EQ needn't be applied.  I totally get that and it's super valuable to someone who doesn't want to have to do that work. It is perhaps the most important gear selection criteria.  It's just that the biggest factor influencing peoples impression of the raw microphone sound is far and away frequency response*, and because I'm almost always going to EQ my recordings regardless, that aspect no longer becomes the most important factor in choosing between micss.  So the convenience of not having to EQ some recordings in order to be totally happy with them isn't the most valuable to me.  *(actually a somewhat more complicated combination of the on-axis and off-axis responses)

So when many tapers get to the point were they are investing in quality mics, they are super intent on the native raw sound differences between the top contenders.  It's small details in the sound heard which become  the critical thing in choosing between Schopes vs DPA, Gefell, Neuman, or whatever.  And that's as it should be.

I've found that mics from any of those top manufacturers allow me to get what I want from them with the manipulation I'm going to be ding to the recording anyway.  So things other than raw response become more important deciding factors, including options, price, powering, weather resistance, etc.

I can't say the same for lesser mics, which don't let me achieve the same quality regardless of my manipulations, and that, rather that native sound or cost is essentially why I categorize them as "lesser" rather than "greater".

That said, and all else being equal, the mk22 is my favorite Schoeps cap sound wise, along with the 4015 on the DPA side.  But the differences in sound at that level of quality is dominated by pickup pattern above most everything else, if a super/hyper is needed that's more important, in that case the MG21 is my top cap (mk41 a close second)

Worse than the table scraps mic situation are the recorders and other gear.   Mics are at least single-aspect elements for the most part, where good general-purpose excellence allows them to be adapted to widely diverse applications.  But I bet we'd all redesign recorders far differently if we could for our specific use.  I know I would!

« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 06:51:05 PM by Gutbucket »
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11591
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #51 on: October 12, 2017, 06:49:24 PM »
..I've A/B'd them often with Schoeps, B&K's, DPA's, MG's, AKG's, Neumann's, etc., usually from a recording made in the same location, and I'm still very happy with them.  BTW, if I were to pick up another pair of mics for concert recording, it wouldn't be Schoeps or DPA's, I'd get a pair of Microtech Gefell's...

nak700s, given what you've posted, I think you should start a search for a pair of the elusive Nak1000s.

Then again, I dig my MG's, you won't go wrong there.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #52 on: October 12, 2017, 07:05:44 PM »
Before I let it go, this thought came to mind as a better way to make the point on the small mics and bass thing-

It would be trivial to build a cheap omni microphone which senses down to zero Hz, outputting DC at that point.  A tiny sensor on an electronic barometer chip does so for pennies.  There is no market for one and it would be problematic anyway.  You'd get large DC offsets with any atmospheric pressure changes!

What is easily possible and what is available are two different things often only tangentially related. 

Tapers get the table scraps of the larger recording gear manufacturing world.  Naks are a good example of mics that happen to be rather well suited to recording as many here at TS do it.  Fortunately mics generally intended for other applications can still do a good job, and we can further manipulate things to get the results we want from them.  That's why I'm actually less concerned with the raw sound from any microphone than how malleable that sound is to my manipulation via EQ or whatever - how easily can I get it to do what I want - and that aspect does seem to be directly correlated with mic quality in my experience.

That's not to say I dismiss the choice of mics based entirely on their raw sound so that EQ needn't be applied.  I totally get that and it's super valuable to someone who doesn't want to have to do that work. It is perhaps the most important gear selection criteria.  It's just that the biggest factor influencing peoples impression of the raw microphone sound is far and away frequency response*, and because I'm almost always going to EQ my recordings regardless, that aspect no longer becomes the most important factor in choosing between micss.  So the convenience of not having to EQ some recordings in order to be totally happy with them isn't the most valuable to me.  *(actually a somewhat more complicated combination of the on-axis and off-axis responses)

So when many tapers get to the point were they are investing in quality mics, they are super intent on the native raw sound differences between the top contenders.  It's small details in the sound heard which become  the critical thing in choosing between Schopes vs DPA, Gefell, Neuman, or whatever.  And that's as it should be.

I've found that mics from any of those top manufacturers allow me to get what I want from them with the manipulation I'm going to be ding to the recording anyway.  So things other than raw response become more important deciding factors, including options, price, powering, weather resistance, etc.

I can't say the same for lesser mics, which don't let me achieve the same quality regardless of my manipulations, and that, rather that native sound or cost is essentially why I categorize them as "lesser" rather than "greater".

That said, and all else being equal, the mk22 is my favorite Schoeps cap sound wise, along with the 4015 on the DPA side.  But the differences in sound at that level of quality is dominated by pickup pattern above most everything else, if a super/hyper is needed that's more important, in that case the MG21 is my top cap (mk41 a close second)

Worse than the table scraps mic situation are the recorders and other gear.   Mics are at least single-aspect elements for the most part, where good general-purpose excellence allows them to be adapted to widely diverse applications.  But I bet we'd all redesign recorders far differently if we could for our specific use.  I know I would!

Well said, and a good explanation of my own motives.  I do not EQ my recordings at all.  I strive for the closest to the sound I hear live, and like the 7's for that reason...as well as their flexibility.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline nak700s

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #53 on: October 12, 2017, 07:07:59 PM »
..I've A/B'd them often with Schoeps, B&K's, DPA's, MG's, AKG's, Neumann's, etc., usually from a recording made in the same location, and I'm still very happy with them.  BTW, if I were to pick up another pair of mics for concert recording, it wouldn't be Schoeps or DPA's, I'd get a pair of Microtech Gefell's...

nak700s, given what you've posted, I think you should start a search for a pair of the elusive Nak1000s.

Then again, I dig my MG's, you won't go wrong there.

If I remember correctly, the 1000's have the same specs, and for all purpose and intent, are the same mic.  I have no idea why they made them, unless it was that one was no longer being made, so they made the other one.  It's puzzling.
Normal: Nakamichi CM-700's >> SD 744T (or) Sony PCM-M10
Normal: Crown CM-700's >> SD 302 >> SD 744T
Stealth: CA-14c >> CA 9200 >> Edirol R-09HR
Ultra stealth: AudioReality >> AudioReality battery box >> Edirol R-09HR
Simple & Sweet!

Offline larrysellers

  • Trade Count: (31)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1927
  • Gender: Male
  • Qualified
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #54 on: October 12, 2017, 07:17:40 PM »
The 700 was electret and the 1000 is a true condenser.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11591
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #55 on: October 12, 2017, 08:12:49 PM »
TS member Spyder 9 is a long time Nak guy who moved from the 700s to 1000s.  I became aware of the 1000s through him (he's local to me).  Maybe ping him for details.  Of what I've heard from him I prefer the 1000.

I have no idea if they are true condensers or not, so I'll defer to Larry on that, and it may well be relevant in this case as all Naks are decades old now.  40 or 50 years ago when electret tech was less advanced externally polarized condensers were almost always superior to eletrets.  These days, that particular differentiation no longer necessarily applies.  Yes, most lower cost and miniature mics are eletrets, but so are some of the very top quality mics.  All DPA mics use back-electret diaphragms, even the fancy 130V powered ones.

This is something rooted in a historic truth that is now sort of like the thing with small mics and bass - it ain't necessarily so.  But because most folks people think it matters at a more fundamental level than it does, manufacturers will continue give the people what they say they want, regardless if it makes a difference or not.  The what's possible verses what is available thing again.

I like that eletrets don't require any polarization voltage applied - they can be run from simpler low voltage supplies, and that the quality ones I use are far less delicate than my quality externally polarized "true" condensers.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline MakersMarc

  • Trade Count: (7)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Gender: Male
  • Two things I hate havin to cook and tryin' to date
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #56 on: October 12, 2017, 09:15:53 PM »
Ran 4011s and then 4022 for almost twenty years, I love them.....in a great environment. Off center, a little far away, in a sketchy room they can be almost useless. I can't remember ever outperforming a room.

With Schoeps on the other hand, much more forgiving. I ran way left of center front row balcony for Jason Isbell last month, for example, and the sound wasn't great at all. Love the recording, really surprised me. DPA 40xx are just so much touchier. I'd take them every time I'm a good room close and centrally located, but that just doesn't happen all the time. Add the sketchy actives and I had to make the change.


http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=595375

« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 09:46:23 PM by MakersMarc »
Mk4v/41v>Nbob kcy x2>nbox platinum/Naiant PFA/Naiant IPA>Oade warm mod Marantz 661 x2/Sony pcm m10x3

Offline bombdiggity

  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #57 on: October 12, 2017, 11:29:26 PM »
I know at some point on another discussion we ended up at the "in post witj enough processing work you can make most mics sound like any other or make most mics sound like something specific" point. 

Maybe true though it depends on how skilled one is in post processing and how much effort one wants to invest in each show. 

I'm a little of the opinion that some degree of balance and naturalness tends to get lost with aggressive post processing but as with any of this YMMV... 

Most of us basically agree on most aspects but each have our particular preferences and goals and preferred methods.  It seems generally sound to start with something that in a raw state is closer to one's general taste.  That is what keeps all these manufacturers in business...
Gear:
Audio:
Schoeps MK4V
Nak CM-100/CM-300 w/ CP-1's or CP-4's
SP-CMC-25
>
Oade C mod R-44  OR
Tinybox > Sony PCM-M10 (formerly Roland R-05) 
Video: Varied, with various outboard mics depending on the situation

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (13)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11591
  • Gender: Male
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2017, 10:03:51 AM »
Good points.  Schoeps do seem more forgiving generally, and are in my way of thinking the top choice for "straight to tape".  There is good reason Schoeps has the reputation it does in the taper community.


Okay, time to demystify a few Schoeps exotics. Anyone know of any tapers every using any of these?  Cost of entry for any of them is a bit of a hurdle for taper mortals.

SuperCMIT- Perhaps the ultimate shotgun. Doesn't sound gun-like in the samples I've heard, with cleaner rejection off axis than any other.  Thinking this would make for the ultimate center channel microphone in my oddball array.  At least I'd only need one of them for that.

KFM 6 sphere- Anyone know of any taper using one?  I'd like to hear that.  Seems like it would be best at the stage-lip or on-stage.

KFM 360- I was long intrigued by this system and schemed for years about how to emulate something similar in a hat.  Potential for an ultimate stealth arrangement.  Sort of lost interest when I moved on to other multi-channel arrays, perhaps ironic now that I have a small enough pair of bidirectionals and could actually rig something up to try it.  Would love to play around with the matrixing on something recorded with it.  Saw one setup at a local university years ago for one of their classical performances. I think I posted a photo at TS somewhere.. Found it here, the thing in the middle between the A-B spaced omnis-



volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

Offline krowllaw

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Schoeps Demystified
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2017, 11:25:46 AM »
I always liked the MGs.  What model should I consider for rock recordings in small venues?

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.232 seconds with 37 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company